Appeal 2007-1685
Application 10/106,402
extrusion, shaping and frying. Like Appellant, we fail to see how one of
ordinary skill in the art would somehow conclude that Meyer’s technique of
smoke drying to reduce moisture in an intermediate product would impart
dye and flavor to the final, shaped hide product in the manner required by
the claimed subject matter. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) See also, In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“The mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
[is not sufficient to show obviousness.]”).
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 6, 11-20, and 25-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA in view of Meyer and as
evidenced by Lynch and the rejection of claims 2-5 and 7-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA in view of Meyer and further
in view of Lynch are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
tf/ls
Brooks Kushman P.C.
1000 Town Center
Twenty-Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013